Compulsory lifejackets

[Guest]

When I did the offshore crew thingy in the wave pool I tried the inflatable - as stated, lie on your back and try not to drown (hated the crotch strap and disengaged it), then out of interest I put on my full set of Henri Lloyd kit (heavy) with built in foam (warm) - it provided enough buoyancy to keep a (conscious) 120kg male afloat and I swam a couple of lengths of the pool to prove I could.

I prefer to wear the wet weather kit, others may prefer the inflatable - who's right? Will I get fined if I am wearing my gear and not a licensed registered certified life jacket?

[Guest]

Just get one of those tiny well packed inflatable aircraft ones that fit on your belt. Approx 150mm x 150mm x 100mm. If it's attached to your body surely you are 'wearing a lifejacket' as I bet the legislation will be 1/2 thought out like most and will knot include the phrase 'inflated'.

[Guest]

National Pleasure Boat Safety Forum Membership

 

Maritime New Zealand (Chair)

Accident Compensation Corporation

Auckland Council Harbourmaster’s Office

Auckland Police Maritime Unit

Coastguard Boating Education

Coastguard New Zealand

Kiwi Association of Sea Kayakers

New Zealand Marine

Ministry of Transport

New Zealand Fishing News

New Zealand Jet Sports Boating Association

New Zealand Search and Rescue Secretariat

New Zealand Underwater

New Zealand Waka Ama

Queenstown Lakes District Harbourmaster

Surf Lifesaving New Zealand

Waikato Regional Council

Water Safety New Zealand

Wellington Regional Council Harbourmaster

Yachting New Zealand

 

NOTE:

Representatives from the NZ Jet Sports Boating Association, Coastguard New Zealand, New Zealand Underwater, New Zealand Waka Ama and the Ministry of Transport were not present at the Forum meeting on 9 May 2013 during which the Forum resolved to write to the Minister of Transport seeking his support for the introduction of a maritime rule making the wearing of lifejackets on under 6 metre boats compulsory.

 

Just had an interesting chat with someone deep in this. It was very interesting to hear that many organisations on the above list do knot want things to change and would prefer the status quo to stay. Some of the names mentioned as wanting no change did surprise me as I would have laid coin down they would vote for a change to compulsory. It's a 50/50 call at the moment as to which way it'll go. Also it's being driven by names most probably wouldn't know exist and some of that has a money element.

 

There is a push by most to get jackets into specific areas though, like stand up paddle boards and things like that.

 

So just because their name is on that list above does knot mean they support change to compulsory wearing. That was heartening to hear.

[rigger 47]

They have too much buoyancy, way overkill and its a hindrance.

 

Talking with a guy that has been accidently dropped into disturbed water he rated the more buoyancy the better in white water

"You can always let a bit out" he added

[Guest]

Good point. Whitewater at sea does not last long though. Thats part of my problem with this , its a one pill cures all approach. Its not going to stop people overcrowding the boat, going out when they should not, being pissed aboard, not keeping a good watch, not getting boating education.

After this will some bastard that wants to sell red flags make the suggestion we use them to tell people they can or can't go to sea? Where does it end?

[eruptn 95]

I can not remember when it was adopted, but Trailer Yachts have had a compulsory rule for several years now.

[Norwegian Blue 10]

$1.93 million extra on an awareness campaign. If the answer = life jackets then that would have bought at least 24000 of them.

 

Do we know if those that drowned even had life jackets on board? Isn't the answer to just give free life jackets to the segment that can't afford them once they have spent all their dosh on a tinny, or is that way too simplistic? Heck, even throw in an hours free risk assessment training when they take their voucher in for a free life jacket/s. I am sure the overall cost to society will be lower and the only added risk are some wealthy people will take advantage of some free stuff.

[PaulR 3]

Good idea but don't the wealthy already have lifejackets enough on BOTH their boats already???

 

Perhaps it would be a better incentive to "UPGRADE" existing lifejackets by making a 75% to 80% subsidy if you trade in an existing life jacket.

 

This way the existing "converted" lifejacket owners can get a newer, flasher, better lifejacket, with light, built in harness, spray hood?, etc and the tradedin life jackets can be sorted and the better ones "GIVEN" away to those who don't value their lives as much.

 

Better bang for the taxpayers buck. Educations, upgrades and free jackets to the poor.

 

[Guest]

$1.93 million extra on an awareness campaign. If the answer = life jackets then that would have bought at least 24000 of them.

 

Do we know if those that drowned even had life jackets on board? Isn't the answer to just give free life jackets to the segment that can't afford them once they have spent all their dosh on a tinny, or is that way too simplistic? Heck, even throw in an hours free risk assessment training when they take their voucher in for a free life jacket/s. I am sure the overall cost to society will be lower and the only added risk are some wealthy people will take advantage of some free stuff.

 

 

Where did you see they where going to spend that amount. Please quote source.

 

 

http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/news/medi ... 30508a.asp

 

 

Quote:

 

 

MNZ Director Keith Manch said the principles aimed to make lifejackets a normal part of any media, publicity, or advertising where small boats were involved.

 

“Just as use of seatbelts in cars is now entirely expected, we want to see lifejackets being worn whenever small boats are seen on screen or in photographs, he said. “The overall aim is to maximise lifejacket use and encouraging media to make sure they are in the picture is part of that.”

 

 

Crayfish

[MarkMT 68]

The number comes from Ogre's original post... supposedly a one-off two-year grant, separate from the currently ongoing $0.93 million in annual funding.

[Guest]

Another rugby player dead

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/8957 ... g-collapse

 

Isn't it about time that helmets were made compulsory? These are unnecessary and preventable deaths. How about a by law that anyone caught playing rugby, or preparing to play rugby, or looking like they may be thinking about playing rugby, without a helmet is subject to a $200 on the spot fine? If they can't pay then they can do 10 hours community service or a night in jail. Time to stop this irresponsible nonsense.

[rigger 47]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11131273

Two South Auckland local politicians want to reduce number of people drowning in small craft accidents

 

A push to make wearing lifejackets compulsory on the Waitemata Harbour to save lives is expected to be strongly opposed by boaties.

 

The drive is coming from two South Auckland local politicians who say too many people are drowning in accidents involving small craft. There are 100,000 boaties in the Auckland region.

 

Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board member Tunumafono Ava Fa'amoe said the board was concerned that drownings had continued despite the 2008 bylaw requiring lifejackets to be carried for everyone in small boats.

 

Nineteen boaties drowned in Auckland between 2008 and 2012, 83 per cent of them in boats under 6m.

 

Mr Fa'amoe said the board had hoped compulsory lifejacket wearing in vessels 6m and under would be approved for this summer but it now hoped it would be ready in time for Labour Weekend next year.

 

"Often people ask: 'Why can't you do something about the drownings?' and our community are saying 'We are - just give us the tool to empower us to look after our community to care for each other, where it counts'."

 

He was backed by Auckland councillor Alf Filipaina, who is also a Counties-Manukau police Pacific liaison officer.

 

 

He was called to the Mangere Bridge in May 2012 when Mr So'saia Paasi and his 7-year-old son Tio drowned when a dinghy capsized. Three other children were rescued from the cold swirling current.

 

"I have no doubt that had they been wearing lifejackets they would not have drowned."

 

Changes to local regulations are part of the review of the Navigation Safety Bylaw, which is due to go out for public comment early next year.

 

However, councillors think it is such a contentious and urgent matter that the lifejacket issue should be treated as a separate bylaw.

 

Councillors are expecting a huge amount of feedback on the topic, possibly matching, if not surpassing the bumper 10,000 submissions on last year's regional dog policy.

 

Council surveys show 35 per cent strongly supported compulsory wearing of lifejackets by all people in small boats while 44 per cent strongly opposed it.

 

Auckland Westpac Rescue Helicopter paramedic Karl Taylor, who also helped during the Mangere Bridge tragedy, said he supported the proposed measures as they could have made a difference to that rescue.

 

"If everyone was wearing lifejackets that day, they potentially could still be alive."

 

Richard Brown, of the Auckland Yachting and Boating Association, which represents 17,000 members in the region's yacht clubs, urged the council not to introduce a "rushed albeit well-meaning bylaw which will have little effect".

 

He said it was unreasonable to cover all types of small boats, at all times and in all sea conditions.

 

Rigid inflatable boats (RIBs) floated even when tipped upside down so wearing lifejackets should be left to the skipper's discretion, or be exempt on a boat doing less than 5 knots in sheltered waters during daylight.

 

Watersafe Auckland chief executive Sandy Harrop called for a separate bylaw on wearing lifejackets, saying the "changing face of Auckland was reflected in drowning statistics".

 

Other councils around the country have already introduced stricter bylaws, although they aren't often enforced - an issue that is yet to be addressed if the Auckland proposal was to go through.

 

 

This comment does make me laugh

"Often people ask: 'Why can't you do something about the drownings?' and our community are saying

 

WTF - people take some responsibility for yourselves.

[Guest]

They should make all boats under 6m illegal, problem solved.

[DrWatson 375]

Simplest way.

 

Give free lifejackets to all kids in South Auckland who say their dad/uncle/brother has a boat.

 

Make them look cool (Sponge Bob or All Black them or something) and there will be no more problems.

What would it cost? $15 a kid? The parents aren't going to spend that money, but for 1.5 million we can make 100,000 kids the proud owners of life jackets.

 

It will give the kids some pride. Kids love to do things like that. They wear their hats and sunscreen, Give them a lifejacket they'll wear it.

 

Unfortunately, I doubt we will see a decrease in children lost at sea through the stupidity of their carers and so finally we will have some better figures to support the fact that although life jackets keep you afloat, they don't necessarily save your life. Lose 6 kids with lifejackets in the current at the Manukau heads, you'll be lucky to find 3 alive.

 

Or we could simply stop kids from going to the beach. Beaches should be R18.

[Murky 1]

Some good ideas in there Dr W - from my own childhood I recall campaigns like "be a tidy kiwi" and also kids encouraging (shaming?) their parents into giving up smoking, so I would say it's totally do-able to drive these things upward through the kids, who seem to be a less complicated group to communicate with.

 

The smoke alarm TV ad with the dad and his daughter with the burned face is another example - I couldn't have moved faster out of my chair to check the batteries when I saw that one.

 

Overall education is more powerful than fines with their accompanying tendency to generate resentment, turn the focus towards methods of avoidance and I think in some of the relevant demographics, are going to create a huge collection issue.

[Guest]

and also kids encouraging (shaming?) their parents into giving up smoking, so I would say it's totally do-able to drive these things upward through the kids, who seem to be a less complicated group to communicate with.

100% totally agree, that method does work. It's also simple to put in place.

 

You can buy a container of basic life jackets ex china for a couple of bucks a jacket, and by that I mean sub $10 each. Knot sexy nor a fashion statement but they will stop you sinking.

[banaari 27]

You can buy a container of basic life jackets ex china for a couple of bucks a jacket, and by that I mean sub $10 each. Knot sexy nor a fashion statement but they will stop you sinking.

+1

(Hehe - I found a sail bag full of precisely those jackets when I burrowed my way into the deeper archeological strata under the cockpit floor. The previous owners' ONLY concession to safety, mind you...)

 

I still can't get my head around the notion that anyone who's going to take a grossly overloaded tinny into rough and icy water... is going to change their behaviour just because of a law change.

[Grinna 2]

I still can't get my head around the notion that anyone who's going to take a grossly overloaded tinny into rough and icy water... is going to change their behaviour just because of a law change.

 

Exactly. Laws only affect the law-abiding. Unfortunately, the standard response to say an unregistered dog attacking a child is to tighten the regulations on registered dogs .... which ignores the elephant in the room that such a move will have no effect on unregistered dogs or the owners who don't follow the rules that already exist so are extremely unlikely to follow more rules.

 

Overloaded small boats and poor judgement and decision making by skippers who are either unfamiliar with the rules, unaware of the risks or totally complacent about the risks will not be fixed by compulsory lifejacket legislation.

[Chewing Gum 17]

They seem hell bent on this legislation so could we lobby for an exemption to the rule for yacht/launch tenders in sheltered bays/harbours ?

 

-Also what makes a 5.9m boat less safe than a 6m boat ?

[Guest]

They seem hell bent on this legislation so could we lobby for an exemption to the rule for yacht/launch tenders in sheltered bays/harbours ?

 

I would be keen to make a submission on this as I dont see life jackets as being the best remedy to this solution and i dont want to have to carry a life jacket with me over summer when I go a shore.